Skip to content
The Climate Litigation Database

Sierra Club v. Mosier

Geography
Year
2014
Document Type
Litigation
Part of

About this case

Filing year
2014
Status
Permit addendum upheld.
Docket number
112,008
Court/admin entity
United StatesState CourtsKansas Supreme Court (Kan.)
Case category
Federal Statutory Claims (US)Clean Air Act (US)Environmentalist Lawsuits (US)
Principal law
United StatesClean Air Act (CAA)
At issue
Challenge to 2014 permit addendum to 2010 Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for construction of new coal-fired power unit.
Topics
, ,

Documents

Filing Date
Document
Type
Topics 
Beta
Search results
03/17/2017
Permit addendum upheld.
The Kansas Supreme Court upheld a 2014 addendum to a 2010 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit issued by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) for construction of a new coal-fired electric generating unit. KDHE issued the 2010 permit several weeks before the effective date of federal regulations requiring greenhouse gas emissions limits in PSD permits for certain sources. In 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court remanded the 2010 permit to KDHE to apply federal standards for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. In its 2013 opinion, the court noted that KDHE would also have to apply the mercury and air toxics standards that had gone into effect during the pendency of the litigation but indicated that the scope of other issues to be considered on remand would be determined by KDHE. On remand, KDHE elected to omit greenhouse gas limits on the grounds that it had stayed the effect of regulations that would have invalidated the approval to construct after 18 months and had not issued a new permit. In Sierra Club’s challenge to the addendum, the court rejected the argument that the addendum was required to incorporate the greenhouse gas regulations that went into effect after issuance of the 2010 permit. The court said its 2013 opinion had not vacated the 2010 PSD permit and had left KDHE with discretion to make “broad determinations” regarding the scope of remand proceedings. The court said that Sierra Club had not established that the addendum constituted a new permit and found that Sierra Club had failed to establish that KDHE’s decision not to include greenhouse gas limits erroneously interpreted or applied the law, was not supported by substantial evidence, or was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
Decision

Summary

Challenge to 2014 permit addendum to 2010 Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit for construction of new coal-fired power unit.

 Topics mentioned most in this case  
Beta

See how often topics get mentioned in this case and view specific passages of text highlighted in each document. Accuracy is not 100%. Learn more

Group
Topics
Policy instrument
Risk
Just transition
Fossil fuel
Greenhouse gas
Economic sector
Finance